Talk:Euro/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~Please fix to meet criteria listed below.~~ Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The vast majority of the references come from highly reliable sources: academic economists, statements by the European Central Bank etc. Can't see any problems here.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I've expressed a concern below about the lack of inclusion of political as well as economic issues, but this isn't enough to block GA: it's just something that would be nice to have for the reader and would help satisfy the 'comprehensiveness' requirement of FAC if there are any plans to go to FAC.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
All seems pretty reasonable to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Can't see any edit warring etc.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A couple are fair use, all have reasonable rationales.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Please sort out the issues listed below.~~ Done

More detailed comments[edit]

Hi, I'm going to review this article for GA. I'm not an economist so I'm looking forward to learning something about eurozone economics and the politics of eurozone membership (potential bias: I'm British and was pro-euro, but given the Greek debt crisis, I think we may have dodged a bullet in not joining!).

Anyway, enough chatter, here are some issues. If these can be fixed, I'll pass, until then, on hold.

From the 'Investment' section:

Studies have found a negative effect of the introduction of the euro on investment as of 2008 economic collapse and the continued currency speculation by Goldman Sachs .

This sentence is unfinished or otherwise unreadable.

It would be good if there was consistency of capitalisation: "eurozone" and "Eurozone". Pick one, preferably based on some linguistic evidence, and stick with it.

Done – Now it looks like this:

Studies have found a negative effect of the introduction of the euro on eurozone investment as of the European sovereign debt crisis and the continued currency speculation by Goldman Sachs.

– Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)}

14:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also be useful if a rough explanation of how adherence or not to optimum currency area theory by U.S. economists shaped the view of the euro. It sort of makes sense to me, a non-economist. The rest of that paragraph goes on to say that economists were skeptical of the unification: are they skeptical of the unification process (as in, they are now no longer skeptical, they were just skeptical of the process of transitioning from the national currencies to the Euro) or of the whole idea of unified pan-national currencies.

From the one-line Tourism section:

A study suggests that the introduction of the euro has had a positive effect on tourism flows within the EMU, with an increase of 6.5%.

What's "tourism flow"? Is that the amount of tourist travel or the amount of tourist spending or tourism-related trade? Not sure if it's an economic term of art or not.

Done - Now it looks like this:

A study suggests that the introduction of the euro has had a positive effect on the amount of tourism travel within the EMU, with an increase of 6.5%.

– Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)}

14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I think is a glaring omission from the article is the politics of Euro membership. There was obviously huge political fervour in countries like the UK in deciding whether or not to join. It may be appropriate to describe, say, the political wrangling that went on in different countries to decide whether or not to join the euro, and how that played out in terms of partisan or political affiliation. Generally, anti-Euro sentiment in Britain has been the preserve of the Conservatives although it was on Labour's watch that the decision to not join was taken, and if I recall correctly, Gordon Brown said that it was purely for fiscal reasons. But people seem to have plenty of political reasons (that, say, the pound is a core part of British identity) to oppose or support eurozone membership as well as the fiscal reasons. (The inclusion of this may be more appropriate for History of the Euro rather than Euro.) —Tom Morris (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. I've passed this for GA. Well done! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom! – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]